Julia Venatrix
   |
Posted - 2010.05.20 20:15:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Julia Venatrix on 20/05/2010 20:15:55
How long have you been playing?
2 years
Have you ever been in low sec?
Yes
Do you run missions or complexes in low sec?
Not missions, complexes occasionally
If so, what is the appeal for you?
Just fancy a change sometimes. I also ninja salvage, WH explore & exploit, and dabble in invention every now and again.
If not, why not?
Ships which are good for missions are terrible for either avoiding PvP, or winning at it.
Are rewards in low sec in line with the risk?
No.
Is the risk in low sec over-stated?
No - well, not risk-to-profit-and-fun, maybe risk-of-being-blown-up. It's not that one will definitely get popped. However, the things one does to mitigate that risk also reduce the rewards rather more.
Would education from savvy players about how to mitigate risk in low sec encourage folks who didn't just want to AFK L4's to operate there?
This question grates rather a lot. The implication is that all hisec missioners are not savvy, nor do they run missions but in hands-off AFK mode - whereas I would counter that actually most hisec missioners remain in hisec after a careful and, indeed, correct analysis of the risk:reward ratio that lowsec offers. AFK missioning means not gaining the return on missioning time that one can through more active flying, and missions are about making money. The things you do that mitigate risk also reduce the ISK/hour of a mission - more, I believe, than the lowsec rewards increase it.
What is the number one change to low sec that would cause you to considering doing missions and complexes there?
Completely redesigning the missions on offer in lowsec around the expectation of PvP opposition.
Lowsec missions should
- throw out the agent Level structure. All lowsec agents would have approximately the same rewards - assume they are as the current lowsec L4 rewards
- spawn one set of rats for each player ship which enters the dungeon, sort of like WHs do with capitals now, which would encourage teamwork (by providing extra bounties for additional mission runners)but also threaten pirates (who are largely immune to mission aggro atm).
- use at least the Sleeper AI if not a more tailored one.
- be designed around ship classes smaller than BSs, and while their challenges will be tailored to the expected ship size, their rewards will not vary.
Do you believe it is possible to make low sec changes that would allow both pirates and carebears to co-exist profitably without crippling either's play style to extinction? Why or why not?
Difficult. Fundamentally, piracy profit must be a tax on carebear profit - and if that tax rate rises too high, then carebear income moves to non-taxable sources (i.e. hisec or properly secure nullsec). If pirate-taxed carebearing in lowsec became profitable enough that both were happy, then if there remained unpirated areas of lowsec, carebearing would be so profitable that it will be perceived as being a worse cure than the original disease.
I expect the most viable set of solutions are those which ultimately make piracy in lowsec unprofitable - probably by mostly reducing the carebear loss/pirate's reward for a successful gank, rather than by reducing the likelihood of one - while keeping the carebear's rewards where they are now, and then we'll see if people still engage in piracy for the fun of victory alone.
Having been a low sec pirate for so long, I see low sec in a very different, far less threatening light than high sec folks.
Do you try to run missions for maximum ISK/hour in a PvE fit battleship when you play in lowsec?
---
Some days you are the pigeon, and some the statue. |